The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#15,826
#15,826
BigOrangeMojo said:
@RockyTop85

What are the odds that Trump will get 12/12 rabid D party hacks in his jury box.

And by rabid D hack I mean someone who will send an innocent person to prison over politics...
Click to expand...

Low, but what are the odds the prosecution found 1 judge in Manhattan that will skew the rules in their favor leading to a conviction?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol737, SpaceCoastVol and davethevol
#15,827
#15,827
hog88 said:
Low, but what are the odds the prosecution found 1 judge in Manhattan that will skew the rules in their favor leading to a conviction?
Click to expand...
Probably pretty similar to the odds that their pretrial litigation delay tactics would have worn out the patience of an impartial judge.
 
#15,828
#15,828
I do almost tear up at the torment sweet donnie trump must be going through with all these trials for his multifaceted lawbreaking. We can only take solace in knowledge that, as he as said, he's doing it for us. I'm scrunching my face up now to hold back the emotion....😢
 
#15,829
#15,829
turbovol said:
I do almost tear up at the torment sweet donnie trump must be going through with all these trials for his multifaceted lawbreaking. We can only take solace in knowledge that, as he as said, he's doing it for us. I'm scrunching my face up now to hold back the emotion....😢
Click to expand...
Prunes and fiber will help your problem.

What state do you live in?
 
#15,831
#15,831
RockyTop85 said:
Probably pretty similar to the odds that their pretrial litigation delay tactics would have worn out the patience of an impartial judge.
Click to expand...
To expand on this: broad voir dire is not universal.

All of the state level criminal court judges where I work have offered a lot of latitude in jury selections. Some of the federal judges don’t.

I don’t have the frame of reference to know what is more common or by how much.

I have seen attorneys get shut down on certain subjects by even the more lenient judges. There aren’t very many black and white lines but, in my opinion, how far your lawyer gets to wade into the grey area is dependent on how much the judge trusts and respects you to make use of that latitude without abusing it.

Going scorched earth with frivolous motions and attempts to delay proceedings before the trial is like a big blaring sign to the judge that you’re going to use the jury selection process to slow things down and get off the beaten path.

Not saying the judge isn’t biased, I have no idea, I’ve not followed the case, but it’s in the jury selection phase and “judge is biased” is getting to be about as persuasive as “Trump may have violated [insert gag order/law]” moments after he tweets or truths or socials or whatever they call it on his site.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Velo Vol
#15,833
#15,833
whodeycin85 said:
Do you think the judge denying the question about who the juror voted for is an issue or just sop?
Click to expand...
👆 see above.

It’s not standard because usually who they voted for isn’t one of the parties.

I think that’s probably not a great issue for appeal. An appellate court would probably find that it is within the judges discretion to prohibit that question.

The judge ultimately decides whether the juror can be excused for cause. Political affiliation is generally not grounds for disqualification. We’ve seen that play out in the Roger Stone case and a couple other cases.

Everything like that is worth objecting to. Its greatest utility is to the campaign. (E.g. Tits McGee gets to complain about the judge in places that Trump donors and potential voters will see it and it keeps people on the bus.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#15,834
#15,834
hog88 said:
Who someone voted for shouldn't be a disqualifier. If they actively worked for a campaign then that should disqualify them.
Click to expand...
I think that’s probably fair, especially if they’re currently working or volunteering for the campaign.

So what is the claim, that they’re not allowed to ask about that at all, weren’t allowed to put it on the questionnaire, weren’t allowed to ask about it in open voir dire, or just weren’t allowed to lead with it?

I think there are probably preliminary questions that could be asked to develop the relevance of political bias.

“My client is a public figure and former president of the United States. Were you familiar with him before today?” (Yes).
“Did any things you’ve learned about Mr. Trump that have caused you to form a negative opinion of him?”
If yes, they should ask for individual questioning, which the judge seems to be allowing, so they can get more into it without tainting the jury pool. If it’s political, then I would think they have a lot more leverage to go into those details about campaign work and affiliation. If it’s just his public persona, then politics are less relevant.

I’d be surprised if the Judge is saying they can’t, under any circumstances, get into the jurors’ politics, because that would be a bad ruling and, IMO, would be evidence of bias.
 
#15,835
#15,835
RockyTop85 said:
I think that’s probably fair, especially if they’re currently working or volunteering for the campaign.

So what is the claim, that they’re not allowed to ask about that at all, weren’t allowed to put it on the questionnaire, weren’t allowed to ask about it in open voir dire, or just weren’t allowed to lead with it?

I think there are probably preliminary questions that could be asked to develop the relevance of political bias.

“My client is a public figure and former president of the United States. Were you familiar with him before today?” (Yes).
“Did any things you’ve learned about Mr. Trump that have caused you to form a negative opinion of him?”
If yes, they should ask for individual questioning, which the judge seems to be allowing, so they can get more into it without tainting the jury pool. If it’s political, then I would think they have a lot more leverage to go into those details about campaign work and affiliation. If it’s just his public persona, then politics are less relevant.

I’d be surprised if the Judge is saying they can’t, under any circumstances, get into the jurors’ politics, because that would be a bad ruling and, IMO, would be evidence of bias.
Click to expand...
Is trial law where you've focused your career?
 
#15,836
#15,836
RockyTop85 said:
I think that’s probably fair, especially if they’re currently working or volunteering for the campaign.

So what is the claim, that they’re not allowed to ask about that at all, weren’t allowed to put it on the questionnaire, weren’t allowed to ask about it in open voir dire, or just weren’t allowed to lead with it?

I think there are probably preliminary questions that could be asked to develop the relevance of political bias.

“My client is a public figure and former president of the United States. Were you familiar with him before today?” (Yes).
“Did any things you’ve learned about Mr. Trump that have caused you to form a negative opinion of him?”
If yes, they should ask for individual questioning, which the judge seems to be allowing, so they can get more into it without tainting the jury pool. If it’s political, then I would think they have a lot more leverage to go into those details about campaign work and affiliation. If it’s just his public persona, then politics are less relevant.

I’d be surprised if the Judge is saying they can’t, under any circumstances, get into the jurors’ politics, because that would be a bad ruling and, IMO, would be evidence of bias.
Click to expand...

From what I understand the defense asked that any current/former campaign volunteers/workers for the Biden or Clinton campaigns be automatically excluded and the judge denied that. Of course I could have it wrong.
 
#15,837
#15,837
McDad said:
Is trial law where you've focused your career?
Click to expand...
Initially, all I did was criminal defense trial level work. I’ve diversified and transitioned into other areas. Now most of the work I do in that area is appeals and motions practice/research, but most of the work I do in general is written, now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#15,839
#15,839
Velo Vol said:
Click to expand...


He's a professional victim. He's done everything possible to attack those who can hold him accountable and done nothing to refute the facts of the case - it's fun watching him finally having to choke on the long **** of accountability, however petty.

But seriously - he can't be so stupid as to think he'd get "unlimited" strikes. Strike that, of course he can.

Maybe he was hoping to go through the entire U.S. population until he got to Eric, Ivanka and his other crotch spawn?
 
#15,840
#15,840
hog88 said:
From what I understand the defense asked that any current/former campaign volunteers/workers for the Biden or Clinton campaigns be automatically excluded and the judge denied that. Of course I could have it wrong.
Click to expand...
Ok. I think that his decision would probably be affirmed on appeal (in Tennessee) but I also think it’s a pretty reasonable request under these circumstances, might have streamlined the jury selection a bit, and wouldn’t have been unfair to the state.

It seems like a legally safe decision but also not a very good decision.
 
#15,841
#15,841
RockyTop85 said:
Initially, all I did was criminal defense trial level work. I’ve diversified and transitioned into other areas. Now most of the work I do in that area is appeals and motions practice/research, but most of the work I do in general is written, now.
Click to expand...
RT85, could you help me with this: The charge against Trump is a state charge being tried in state court. I have heard a couple of commentators, including Andrew McCarthy, explain that the prosecution had to pursue the state falsification of business records charge as a felony in order to be within the statute of limitations. In order to elevate the state falsification of business records to a felony, the prosecution has to show that the falsification was for the purpose of concealing another crime. The prosecution claims that the other crime is a violation of federal campaign laws. Yet the feds have not charged Trump with federal campaign law violation. Does the state court have jurisdiction to decide, as an element of this prosecution, that Trump violated federal campaign law? It seems that a charge of violating federal campaign law should be adjudicated in a federal court. This seems a lot like the Colorado ballot removal case where the state attempted to remove Trump from the ballot, as an insurrectionist, when he had not been federally charged, tried or convicted as an insurrectionist.
 
#15,842
#15,842
Velo Vol said:
Click to expand...


Septic said:
He's a professional victim. He's done everything possible to attack those who can hold him accountable and done nothing to refute the facts of the case - it's fun watching him finally having to choke on the long **** of accountability, however petty.

But seriously - he can't be so stupid as to think he'd get "unlimited" strikes. Strike that, of course he can.

Maybe he was hoping to go through the entire U.S. population until he got to Eric, Ivanka and his other crotch spawn?
Click to expand...
I think he got confused because you are allowed unlimited strikes for cause. But as I said in the earlier post, the judges determinations on that are pretty tough to get reviewed and Trump spent the last few weeks antagonizing the judge.

Which is basically the epitome of my problem with all Trump cases:
I don’t want the system to be broken.
But the system is broken.

Anybody who has a lawyer ought to know that it’s broken and should have been advised not to antagonize the people whose hand rests on the lever that operates the anal reamer piston.

People who come into court acting like Alex Jones, Rudy Giuliani, and Donald Trump tend to get the piston. And, in the criminal system, that happens a lot and there is a whole manual on how to operate the piston and keep it in good working order that has been written by the hundreds of thousands of criminals with no impulse control who came before.

So if a defendant disregards their lawyer’s advice (e.g. goes after the judge’s daughter), then they are essentially asking for special treatment if they try to keep the Judge’s hands off the lever.

I often think that the requested special treatment is how things ought to work. But giving special treatment without establishing new rules that apply to ordinary people just breaks the system more, it doesn’t fix it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#15,843
#15,843
Cod said:
Do you think there isn’t a deep state, so you think the people we elect actual run the government….. oh wait you probably do have complete faith and trust in our government, believe wars are started for just cause and see them leading the fight for democracy!!! Good good comrade!
Click to expand...
No, I don't think there is a "deep state". I certainly don't believe those other things as well. Run along
 
#15,844
#15,844
RockyTop85 said:
Which is basically the epitome of my problem with all Trump cases:
I don’t want the system to be broken.
But the system is broken.
Click to expand...
Vague statement. Maybe you already posted what specifically you are referring to in this case? My attention comes and goes here.
 
#15,845
#15,845
Velo Vol said:
Vague statement. Maybe you already posted what specifically you are referring to in this case? My attention comes and goes here.
Click to expand...
Mostly speaking generally. The law has developed in a way that allows a lot of unfairness to be tolerated under the pretext of not wanting to inhibit judicial or prosecutorial discretion.

The specific example was that not disqualifying Biden campaign volunteers for cause. It is almost certainly not mandatory, without more; but it seems like a reasonable precaution if we’re seeking a fair trial rather than just a result that won’t get overturned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volbound1700
#15,846
#15,846
RockyTop85 said:
The specific example was that not disqualifying Biden campaign volunteers for cause. It is almost certainly not mandatory, without more; but it seems like a reasonable precaution if we’re seeking a fair trial rather than just a result that won’t get overturned.
Click to expand...
Unknowable counterfactual: If Nixon had been charged for something similar to this 50 years ago, would people be putting up the same partisan microscope to each potential juror as they are today?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top